Jump to content
Small Stuff

"USRC 30tons Revenue Cutte1829" by Small Stuff - 1/24 - Scratch

Recommended Posts

Hello friends.

 

As I restarted my life in a new flat as a single in may of this year I restarted my hobby also - but my right eye got so bad during the last few month that I was forced to stop car driving. So I crashed the Ranger and got mad of being unable to built anything intelligent until today. I got a book at ebay and found the old Krick kit of the Alert! And I got mindsick and bought it spontaniously - due to the fact that 1/25 might be an intelligent way to outwit my eye. W'ht'n'heaven hav' I done?

 

I first decided to bash the kit, and had to figure out that it was easier to rebuilt it scratch. Then I got the information to have copied the wrong plan. So I decided to make use of the 1829 30tons one due the rectangular hull lines. Because of this I changed the titel and set in this small statement for you to show the development of the buildingstory.

 

 

So I'm awaiting the pacel and started looking for some literature and background information:

https://www.uscg.mil/history/webcutters/Alert1818.pdf

But in there is an intersing group of words:

She was constructed of live oak, red cedar, and locust, with four ports per side. Does this text mean square formed ports with lids?

...and is the Alert of 1818 of the 57ft-Class with 75tons (without fractional number XY/95 ? I couldn't belief! :o ) the wrong prototype? And do I have to buy the AotS Book of Alert 1777?

 

Perhaps you can help - during I'm rummage around in my issiue of Chapelle's book The History of the American Sailing Navy to find further answers... and start reading here: http://modelshipworld.com/index.php/topic/6400-alert-by-riverboat-krick-125th-scale/

 

Yours,

Small Stuff

post-8257-0-59790100-1409685790_thumb.jpg

Edited by Small Stuff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greetings, Small Stuff - glad to see you back on board!  I suspect that the Krick Alert is probably not built to the Doughty 79 ton plans - the model appears to be about a 31 ton vessel, while the actual Alert was (as you noted) 75tons.  The name is likely wrong, but would be reasonable to look at the Doughty 31 ton plans for similar vessels.  See the discussion here http://modelshipworld.com/index.php/topic/700-usrc-alert-by-dubz-revenue-cutter-done/?p=9150 on Dirk's build log for the Alert.

 

Peter Goodwin's book is of a single-masted British Naval Cutter (vessel type, not purpose). The deck layouts and armament are quite different.  One of those wonders of the terminology before it was standardized - a cutter could both describe the vessel style and rig or the vessel purpose 9 such as a Revenue Cutter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hy Wayne,

 

thanks for the interestng informations.

 

Now the kit's length is 864 mm what gives to us 21.600 m/m in 1ft=12inch or 70,86ft so it might be the 79 62/95 tons with its 69 1/2 ft length on deck...  But this is a wrong trap!

Because the Length on the  box will be a length over all to get the illusion of getting a BIG shipmodel out of the kit! So we'll have to ask Riverboat to measure the decks length on his kit to figure out if it is a 513/95tons or a 313/95tons Cutter.

 

This from here and me today,

Edited by Small Stuff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here the very diffrence between the two R.C.-types

 

31 3/95  |  51 3/95tons

Length per perpendicles: 46'6'' |  54'6''

Length range on deck | upon deck: 48'6''  |  56'8''

Beam moulded: 14'6''  |  17'0''

 

So we'll have to devide these through 25 to get the modells measurements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello viewers in your chairs,

 

Frank told me the deck of his kit (mine is still under way)  is stem to stem 21' long.  

So lets be mathematics:

 

This means 21' is  533,4 m/m in 1/25

this gives us 13.335 m/m in 1'=12'' and so we get 43 3/4 ft Lod for the originl Revenue Cutter  

 

what might be a "fact" that I sholud deal with the 31 3/95tons Cutter plans which were noted by Chapelle with a >>Length range on deck: 48'6''<< 

 

So these were the Plans my friends:

 

 

post-8257-0-80614600-1410458204_thumb.jpg

post-8257-0-82523600-1410458383_thumb.jpg

Edited by Small Stuff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello friends,

 

due to the fact, that the drawing is made in 1815 by Master Dughty, the kit is surrealistic, because it is dated to 1812.  ;)

 

But the kit is there and I shoot some pictures for you with a CA$coin and an €coin of one cent on it: This is a small secretary  in the floor I made the photos on, This because I decided to place the built model over it in a strait showcase.

 

 now know why the kit was as cheap as I bought it - the one bulkhead is cracked and some of the others were poorly sawn. :angry:  But this is nothing that couldn't be fixed.  :dancetl6:

 

And now...

 

 

post-8257-0-33391300-1411985981_thumb.jpg

post-8257-0-81065600-1411985983_thumb.jpg

post-8257-0-46265200-1411985985_thumb.jpg

post-8257-0-69232300-1411985986_thumb.jpg

post-8257-0-66599800-1411985987_thumb.jpg

post-8257-0-79521000-1411985988_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Smallstuff...... just curious , looking at the art work on the  box of your Alert, it's different than mine , also looks like your plan that you have on the wall has to gunports on the side , is that correct?  do you have the gun on the swivel on deck? I was just wondering if Krick has changed anything. The Alert I have is the same one Dirk did.Thanks.

Frank

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"We are not amused!"

 

 

Only the distance between the masts seem to be right. 

So what was to do? 

I called Mr. Krick... he was only able to tell me that his father  construced the kit based on italian plans of a Revenue Cutter named "Alert".

This is a product of pure phantasy - she is based on the Doughty's drawings - but the letters for the name on the transom have never been used in this way in the XIX. century. The gun is quite well done and the pivot's construction.

So I think I'll evaluate the correctness of the masts, yards and rigging by the data given by Chapelle and in Pettersons book "RIGGING period ship modells":

Do you thnk it makes any sence to replace the hull under a well proprtionated rigging?

 

Yours 

post-8257-0-73094800-1412074741_thumb.jpg

post-8257-0-91467800-1412074749_thumb.jpg

post-8257-0-14576400-1412074764_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I took the wrong set of plans to the copyshop!  :angry:

IT was the 30 tons Cutter of 1829 instead of the 31 3/95 ton ner as I wanted to do.

 

And how happy and sattisfied I am - not to be forced to enlage the plans for the 1829 cutter from Wm. Doughty once again...

 

So let's redo it, :blush:

post-8257-0-70312200-1412099998.gif

Edited by Small Stuff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, found this topic and as I am also the "happy" owner of this kit, I would like to share some thoughts. First of all,I am really keen on history of the real vessels. I spent literally months comunicating with various people and institutions including historical department of US coast guard (former US revenue service). Once upon a time I published my research on already dead drydockmodel forum, may be some of you remember it. So, just a very very short summary, if interested, I may provide more details on request:

 

- let's distinguish once for all between the BRITISH cutter Alert on 18ct (described in ship's Anatomy book in the first post of this thread- this was one mast vessel of french-origin cutter design)  and here discussed US revenue cutter based on Doughty's plans- this is an example of two masted topsail schooner, extreme type of so called Baltimore clipper.

- Italian plans used by Krick (and alas, more other kit manufacturers) are very old, innacurate and contains many errors in (not only!) rigging, hull lines etc

- W. Doughty created three designs of plans upon request as correctly mentioned here. The plans are preserved. But beware of the two facts:1. The list of vessels built on these plans is not known. Although we do have some evidence that particular ship was built on the plan, the list is not fully complete and because of fact two: in turbulent years after the War of Independance, the plans, although given and ordered to follow, were not followed strictly. This can give us "advantage" : nobody shall blame you when your model does not represent the exact Doughty's design, although it should have been built upon it.

- Nevertheless, the italian plan of Alert contains many factografical errors in rigging and other stuff, that you can hardly excuse it just by this explanation.

- Italian plan of your "Alert" (and also mine :)) is based on the smallest 31 ton Doughty's design. I will skip now my research regarding the fact if ANY real ship was built on this smallest design and will focus on Alert:

- Although you may find some POSSIBLE references to USRS cutter Alert in older resources (e.g. Chapelle's American sailing ships), this is wrong and corrected by later literature (Caney)

- As you correctly observed, Alert of 1818 does not match your plans (75 tons, 4 ports per side...), nor Alert of 1829 matches (sorry, but that is the fact, can provide you with resources, if tyou wish)

 

Summary:

1. Krick's Alert is based on very old and full of errors italian resemblance of W. Doughty's plan

2. Due to the fact we have no exact vessel naming list, if you study carefully the literature and various guides (again, may offer some good resources), you can build up a good representation of 31 ton Doughty's revenue cutter out of this kit. It is marvellous!

3. If you care about historical accuracy, do not try to connect your kit and built with any particular vessel (and by no way with any "Alert" ) of USRS

4. By no means do I want to discourage you, I own the same kit, unassembled, and spent too much time searching informations from various sources, I am just sharing my knowledge, nothing more. Will be interested in your build log and will gladly help with any info I can provide.

Edited by juhu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Smallstuff...... just curious , looking at the art work on the  box of your Alert, it's different than mine , also looks like your plan that you have on the wall has to gunports on the side , is that correct?  do you have the gun on the swivel on deck? I was just wondering if Krick has changed anything. The Alert I have is the same one Dirk did.Thanks.

Frank

 

Hy Frank,

 

no I think the just facelifted the box, that may be the point.

 

Oh now there are no gunports, they just shot "through" the bulwalk. It was simple a rope running through the eyes on the top of iron poles.

And the gun is also not in a "swivel"gun  - a swivel gun is a big/heavy rifle on a fork later with an axis - usually swivel guns were fixed on special posts added to the bulwalk. This carronade is on a middle pivot gliding cariage - yes she swivels at all but the termici technici seperate two kinds of guns small and heavy clearly. And to keep the text clear&easy to read - so I would like to show it to you to avoid a confusion about this two types of guns and their carriages.

 

On the one hand we deal with a small weapon in a fork - coming trom the musketiers of the XVI. century (found on the Marie-Rose for example) a kind of add to aim with a heavy gun's barrel she is only used a gainst soft targerts;

 

and on the other hand one coming from the earliest gun boats (-> Alf Chapman ) - giving the boats a 360° arc of fire usefull in the battels against ships with boardside artillery to keep them selve out of the arc of enmy's fire - by still being able to attack them under all circumstances - able to fire any kind of ammo against hull, rigging and the enemy's crew.

 

 a good example of a row of heavy swivelguns is to find here along the boardside

and

between the catheads there are two middle pivot carriages:

 

http://www.sjohistoriska.se/ImageVaultFiles/id_3070/cf_1781/40.JPG

 

I don't want to sound sententious - but it keeps my mind clear when I know what do you mean, and it makes conversation a lot easier.

 

Yours

Chris

 

Source of picture:

http://warof1812archaeology.blogspot.de/

post-8257-0-77134400-1412159800.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, found this topic and as I am also the "happy" owner of this kit, I would like to share some thoughts. First of all,I am really keen on history of the real vessels. I spent literally months comunicating with various people and institutions including historical department of US coast guard (former US revenue service). Once upon a time I published my research on already dead drydockmodel forum, may be some of you remember it. So, just a very very short summary, if interested, I may provide more details on request:

 

- let's distinguish once for all between the BRITISH cutter Alert on 18ct (described in ship's Anatomy book in the first post of this thread- this was one mast vessel of french-origin cutter design)  and here discussed US revenue cutter based on Doughty's plans- this is an example of two masted topsail schooner, extreme type of so called Baltimore clipper.

- Italian plans used by Krick (and alas, more other kit manufacturers) are very old, innacurate and contains many errors in (not only!) rigging, hull lines etc

- W. Doughty created three designs of plans upon request as correctly mentioned here. The plans are preserved. But beware of the two facts:1. The list of vessels built on these plans is not known. Although we do have some evidence that particular ship was built on the plan, the list is not fully complete and because of fact two: in turbulent years after the War of Independance, the plans, although given and ordered to follow, were not followed strictly. This can give us "advantage" : nobody shall blame you when your model does not represent the exact Doughty's design, although it should have been built upon it.

- Nevertheless, the italian plan of Alert contains many factografical errors in rigging and other stuff, that you can hardly excuse it just by this explanation.

- Italian plan of your "Alert" (and also mine :)) is based on the smallest 31 ton Doughty's design. I will skip now my research regarding the fact if ANY real ship was built on this smallest design and will focus on Alert:

- Although you may find some POSSIBLE references to USRS cutter Alert in older resources (e.g. Chapelle's American sailing ships), this is wrong and corrected by later literature (Caney)

- As you correctly observed, Alert of 1818 does not match your plans (75 tons, 4 ports per side...), nor Alert of 1829 matches (sorry, but that is the fact, can provide you with resources, if tyou wish)

 

Summary:

1. Krick's Alert is based on very old and full of errors italian resemblance of W. Doughty's plan

2. Due to the fact we have no exact vessel naming list, if you study carefully the literature and various guides (again, may offer some good resources), you can build up a good representation of 31 ton Doughty's revenue cutter out of this kit. It is marvellous!

3. If you care about historical accuracy, do not try to connect your kit and built with any particular vessel (and by no way with any "Alert" ) of USRS

4. By no means do I want to discourage you, I own the same kit, unassembled, and spent too much time searching informations from various sources, I am just sharing my knowledge, nothing more. Will be interested in your build log and will gladly help with any info I can provide.

 

Hello juhu,

 

I'm proud to be the fifth addresssee of your time here, so I may be allowed to say ""A warm welcome abo(a)rd to you!"

Being with the Alert - community of fate you figured out everthing very clearly and detailed, thanks a lot for this. So I can only reply my inherent warning to buy this kit of s*it as you do in No. 3 - but what is the solution to the situation we share both?

I guess nothing out of this box of Pandora really fits our demands of historically correctness. I myself think of taring the model down to the keel with an axe to avoid further frustration. As you could read beforehand I decided to "rebuilt" the hull to be abl to recycle the rigging - due to the fact that I don't own a lathe. So I'm going to measure the kit's rigging now to deside IF it is merit to be reutilised.

 

See you later in this theater!

 

Christian 

 

Picture's source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0d/Opened_up_a_Pandora%27s_box.jpg

post-8257-0-23037100-1412169023_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Christian,

thanks for a nice welcome. Actually, I have been present on modelshipworld for some time. But was inactive for a period and after the web was redesigned some time ago, my account with posts was deleted? Shame, there were some interesting discussion and threads regarding other kits'historical accuracy. And before that I was active on now dead drydockmodels, where I have posted my research regarding these revenue cutters... also lost. Nevertheless, I am here and now more watching than writing :)

Regarding the Krick's Alert, this is really old model kit and yes, if one seeks the historical accuracy, better to go elsewhere. But this is pretty same with ALL available commercial kits of this vessel type (they all seem to be based on those same old plans). So yes, making a firewood out of it is an option. On the other hand, if you take proper literature (mentioned Peterssons book for rigging etc.), you can improve many errors at least as far as the sails and threads are concerned. Some of the other things are easier to correct (wrong masts height), some can be more of trouble (problematic hull lines as seen on your shots comparing to the plans). But then again, from the sources it is clear that even if the particular vessel was built on Doughty's plans, it can vary in dimensions, tonnage etc. In turbulent post war times I think this is nothing special. So you can use this kit as a base and build the model of the smallest Doughty's schooner and your representation can be quite faithful due to the above mentioned deviations of the real vessels. To say the truth, there is no evidence (I am not aware of at least) that there was a ship built upon this SMALLEST 31t Doughty's plan. I have my theory that it is possible that only those two larger designs came into the life, but this would be another discussion. Anyway, decision is up to us, personally I also think of putting this kit away and to buy some better kit of another nice schooner (what a shame Model Shipways is not easily obtainable here in Europe!) or may be at the end I will try to make something out of this one. 

If possible, I would be very interested to see the Doughty's plans from Chapelles book to be compared with bulkheads from the kit. As I see from the photos, keel seems to be pretty off? I am afraid if the bulkheads are too, correcting the kit may be like a total scratch build :) I am also keen on seeing how you rebuild the hull - if you make a new bulkeads and bash the keel to match the plans, then also the deck piece from the kit will not probably fit etc etc.... quite a lot of work...

Juraj

Edited by juhu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hy Juraj,

 

to pimp up this kit would be a rebuild at all - now I had the time to measure the rigging, too and so I figured out that nothing has any relationship to the Chapelle list beside the drawings!  :angry: 

So Im on the trap to a scratch project... 

 

So I've the free choice to built the Krick-kit for a more European stile Viking furneal (instead of putting it in the oven) or the go tomorrow into the copyshop -takeing the right dawings with me- to use the impetus of the moment for the scratching of the 31 3/95 tons Revenue Cutter. But as you told to us there is no fact that these Revenue Cutter's Type was built at all. 

 

I'm unshure what is to do - to do the right thing. :huh: I have got a plenty of Chapelle planes from all his books - today the last leck in my Chapelle's books row was filled by the arriving of "The National Watercraft Collection" :) .

 

You've got a PM,

 

yours

 

Chris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Chris,

well, your supply of Chapelle's books is much larger than mine :). Yes, I do have a copy of American sailings ships plus some other newer sources regarding these particular vessels. Just one correction: I am not saying there was no SMALLEST 31ton cutter built. Fact is, we have no full list of vessels built on those plans. Fact is also, that those vessels we know are based on Doughty's plan are all of the two larger designs.

One interesting point: only the smallest of the Chapelles plans calls for a carronade as armament. Both larger plans had drawn long guns. I am just thinking why, lets speculate a bit, since we have no clues:

Carronade is in general lighter in weight than long cannon, more suitable for a very small boat. However it has also lower shooting  range, is less accurate. It is more devastating in close combats. But look at this plans. No bulkwards, just rope railing. Doughty's design can hardly be called a fighting vessel. It is built for a speed and agility. I also guess, for this purpose the long range gun is more appropriate equipment, if the ship size allows it. If you are going to rebuild this kit to a larger design, I would definitely not use a carronade but a long gun on the deck. Actually, this was also my plan, to "enlarge" the design.... but. Now I see the main problem. If you search here on a forum, you will find beautifully built Alert. But the hull lines comparing to the plans looks very  "strange"  . I am just hasitating to construct the whole new hull to make it look somehow more realistic... Also not sure what to do with the kit. Will send also PM...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I decided to make use of the 1829 30tons plans due the rectangular hull lines. Because of this I changed the titel and start now to cut out the bulkheads awaiting the 30 tons story: 

post-8257-0-63019800-1412242938_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These plans are direcly enlagements from the Chapelle-book. Bare of any pomp&circumstance - so the these plans are direcly copied from the book and enlaged in a very good copyshop in Berlin- Prenzlauer Berg (Germany)  :D . And the copymaschines are so good, that I can invert the drawings to white on black - so I can figure out the middle of the lines. Now the backboard is nearly ready, My mainproblem ist the "crossing" of the foremast with frame "F"... so I'llhave to built a solid softwoodenblock arround the point of crossing and bore a hole fore the mast in there later. 

Do you think this may work? 

 

I made the pictures already but my mobilephone is still in the loadingprocess so you have to wait  a little bit. Sorry for this. :rolleyes:

 

Yours Chris 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

well, photos may be good, as I understand the problem, yes, your solution may work, I quite liked the one proposed also in the kit - cut in the keel to fix the mast. But softwood box may also suit.

Hm, do you think it would be possible to share some photos of this plan_ just to get an idea_ I think I do not have this one. At least I see for example scuppers on the side - nice detail omitted in the klit and also all plans. I do have three Doughty§s plan of +á+ť, but the cover art of our plans looks great and much better than for example the one on the Alert§s box - I believe these plans are very fine. How much pages is there in them? What is the content?

 

Edited: sorry, I was blind, I see this is somewhat different plan that the original "triple" we were talking about. Ok, anyway, any info of the content is welcome :)

Edited by juhu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a hurry - the pictures of the first scetches on transparent paper. The most beloved problem is the joining of the mast's underdeck part and bulkhead "F" - I think I will surround the part with massive softbook to bore ther in - does this make sence in reality???

 

Yours, Chris

post-8257-0-65403600-1412326236_thumb.jpg

post-8257-0-81376900-1412326252_thumb.jpg

post-8257-0-96506300-1412326269_thumb.jpg

post-8257-0-05560500-1412326286_thumb.jpg

post-8257-0-95378200-1412326300_thumb.jpg

post-8257-0-54710600-1412326315_thumb.jpg

post-8257-0-60089100-1412326330_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hm, if I understand it correctly, the massive block would be an option - to fix the bulkhead and then make a hole for the mast. Although may be not necessary. If you keep the bulkhead in place with some soft wood block or better balsa framing, you ma just need to make a cut for the mast in the bulkhead, just like it is done in the keel... difficult to explain in words :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks a lot - the block of softwood will make it easyer than I thought.

So I'm still on track.

I figured out that the bulkheads are drawn without planking. And by this I could saw them out directly and use them as moulds.

The backbone is also 4mm thick - so I can use for the moulds and the backbone the same pice of plywood.  

But what kind of plywood I should buy tomorrow? 

Yours,

Christian

post-8257-0-57387100-1412368755_thumb.jpg

post-8257-0-62417200-1412368772_thumb.jpg

Edited by Small Stuff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello forum,

 

I've been able to buy the wood for the innen parts of the hull for less than 20€ - it's cuttonwood and beech plywood. Beech for the moulds and the backbone... cuttonwod as filling softwood. I found some dignified substitute for a magnifying glass.  ;)  

 

Here today's results for you  - hopingyou've got fun with this fist steps:

 

 

 

post-8257-0-19884100-1412460562_thumb.jpg

post-8257-0-02023700-1412460565_thumb.jpg

post-8257-0-55565400-1412460568_thumb.jpg

post-8257-0-11337800-1412460571_thumb.jpg

post-8257-0-99848800-1412460572_thumb.jpg

post-8257-0-93074500-1412460574_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

About us

Modelshipworld - Advancing Ship Modeling through Research

SSL Secured

Your security is important for us so this Website is SSL-Secured

NRG Mailing Address

Nautical Research Guild
237 South Lincoln Street
Westmont IL, 60559-1917

About the NRG

If you enjoy building ship models that are historically accurate as well as beautiful, then The Nautical Research Guild (NRG) is just right for you.

The Guild is a non-profit educational organization whose mission is to “Advance Ship Modeling Through Research”. We provide support to our members in their efforts to raise the quality of their model ships.

The Nautical Research Guild has published our world-renowned quarterly magazine, The Nautical Research Journal, since 1955. The pages of the Journal are full of articles by accomplished ship modelers who show you how they create those exquisite details on their models, and by maritime historians who show you the correct details to build. The Journal is available in both print and digital editions. Go to the NRG web site (www.thenrg.org) to download a complimentary digital copy of the Journal. The NRG also publishes plan sets, books and compilations of back issues of the Journal and the former Ships in Scale and Model Ship Builder magazines.

Our Emblem

Modelshipworld - Advancing Ship Modeling through Research
×
×
  • Create New...